Answer Log - Earth and Virtual caches

[+J Grouchy]

I realize virtuals are no longer really popping up, but this is something I would love to see for new logs in both virtuals and earth caches...maybe even other types that require directly contacting the CO about a specific cache.

 

I guess it would be similar to the Reviewer Note, but would be visible to the cache owner only...a place to write in answers that the owner typically requires for valid "Found It" logging. This comes about from the typically frustrating and annoying need to send a seperate email to the CO with the answers. On a mobile device, this requires going through the VERY non-mobile-friendly website to access the CO's profile, then clicking the link to send them a message, where one THEN needs to specify what cache they are referencing, etc. etc...

 

On the website, it's slightly easier...but it all just seems like so many extra steps. It seems like adding a log type, or maybe even just adding a field to the "Found It" log that does not publish to the public, but the owner can see when logged in and accessing their own cache pages, would be a useful tool. It would help the COs out because then they wouldn't be getting two email notifications for each 'found it' log and they wouldn't need to switch back and forth from email to cache page to verify the correct answers - it would all be in one spot.

 

I know I'll inevitable get the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" replies...but to me, it just seems like anything that streamlines the process - even the little things - helps to make it a better experience overall.

Edited September 24, 2013 by J Grouchy

[+dprovan]

Yeah, that would be useful in a wide range of situations. A "nice to have" additional feature would be to be able to see the secret notes that I previously posted, maybe even edit them.

 

In addition to the additional requirements case you're talking about, it would be useful for Needs Maintenance logs where the details of the problem involve spoilers.

[+J Grouchy]

Yeah, that would be useful in a wide range of situations. A "nice to have" additional feature would be to be able to see the secret notes that I previously posted, maybe even edit them.

 

In addition to the additional requirements case you're talking about, it would be useful for Needs Maintenance logs where the details of the problem involve spoilers.

 

Yeah, that's a good one. It could be useful in other ways than just "found it" logs on virtuals. I'd actually prefer to see it as a part of whatever log one is posting instead of an altogether seperate log...maybe with a divider or some other way of graphically indicating that it is a non-public portion of the log. Also...a character limit would definitely be in order to minimize rambling.

[+Don_J]

Yeah, that would be useful in a wide range of situations. A "nice to have" additional feature would be to be able to see the secret notes that I previously posted, maybe even edit them.

 

In addition to the additional requirements case you're talking about, it would be useful for Needs Maintenance logs where the details of the problem involve spoilers.

 

Yeah, that's a good one. It could be useful in other ways than just "found it" logs on virtuals. I'd actually prefer to see it as a part of whatever log one is posting instead of an altogether seperate log...maybe with a divider or some other way of graphically indicating that it is a non-public portion of the log. Also...a character limit would definitely be in order to minimize rambling.

 

This is a really, really good idea, for all logs. For the Earthcache owners, everything would be on the cache listing. For the guy that lost his pen on the way to the cache, the secret message for the CO could be, "I found a match container, wrapped in leopard pattern duct tape, hanging three feet up on the N/W side of the pepper tree".

 

Plus as noted, I have had trouble describing maintenance needed without spoiling the cache.

[stebu]

Yeah, that would be useful in a wide range of situations. A "nice to have" additional feature would be to be able to see the secret notes that I previously posted, maybe even edit them.

Secret logs are a great idea, and also viewing the logs you've sent.

But editing the replies and maintenance reports and so on afterwards is not a good idea.

If the CO has taken an action based on a secret log, this log should not be changed.

[+J Grouchy]

Now I sort of wish I could rename this thread to account for the multitude of uses...since it's usefule for more than just sending answers to COs of virtual and earth caches.

[+dprovan]

But editing the replies and maintenance reports and so on afterwards is not a good idea.

If the CO has taken an action based on a secret log, this log should not be changed.

Yeah, there are two ways to look at it. You could view them as permanent, unchangeable records, which would argue against editing them. Or you can look at them like any other log (including NMs and NAs, which the CO also takes action on yet can be edited), in which case editing them is obviously useful just to correct typos and such, and also useful in a case where the additional requirement log isn't good enough, but in a way that the CO allows for it to be corrected.

 

I'm not married to the idea of letting them be edited, but I think it would be useful, and no more of a problem for its ability to revise history than any other log. I actually suspect the bigger problem will be that allowing them to be edited would significantly complicate the implementation.

[+J Grouchy]

But editing the replies and maintenance reports and so on afterwards is not a good idea.

If the CO has taken an action based on a secret log, this log should not be changed.

Yeah, there are two ways to look at it. You could view them as permanent, unchangeable records, which would argue against editing them. Or you can look at them like any other log (including NMs and NAs, which the CO also takes action on yet can be edited), in which case editing them is obviously useful just to correct typos and such, and also useful in a case where the additional requirement log isn't good enough, but in a way that the CO allows for it to be corrected.

 

I'm not married to the idea of letting them be edited, but I think it would be useful, and no more of a problem for its ability to revise history than any other log. I actually suspect the bigger problem will be that allowing them to be edited would significantly complicate the implementation.

 

Well, I don't believe you can go back and edit or delete a Needs Archived log, so it's more a matter of making that clear to the submitter.

[+dprovan]

Well, I don't believe you can go back and edit or delete a Needs Archived log, so it's more a matter of making that clear to the submitter.

Really? I changed a Needs Archived log a few years ago, but perhaps the restriction you're talking about has been added.

[+J Grouchy]

Well, I don't believe you can go back and edit or delete a Needs Archived log, so it's more a matter of making that clear to the submitter.

Really? I changed a Needs Archived log a few years ago, but perhaps the restriction you're talking about has been added.

 

Well...maybe you can. I thought I'd tried before and was unable...but maybe I'm misremembering...

[+Don_J]

Well, I don't believe you can go back and edit or delete a Needs Archived log, so it's more a matter of making that clear to the submitter.

Really? I changed a Needs Archived log a few years ago, but perhaps the restriction you're talking about has been added.

 

Well...maybe you can. I thought I'd tried before and was unable...but maybe I'm misremembering...

 

For logs on your caches, I think that you can delete every thing except Reviewer Notes. Except for Found It logs, deleting the log does not reverse any action that the log performed. For logs that you posted, you can delete/edit anything.

[Jayme H]

LOVE this idea! Thanks so much for sharing that, J Grouchy. We will be touching base with the Mobile Department to see what they think. Good stuff!

[+Traditional Bill]

As an owner of multiple earthcaches, I condone this idea. My email arrives right to my phone, however, when I receive a "found it" log on one of my ECs, I prefer to view the information outside of my email client. I'd rather view the page in it's entirety. Including a secret log that only I could see would exponentially help and save a ton of time both for myself and the cacher who found my EC.

 

On the downside - if a new cacher finds the EC who doesn't know how to use the feature posts as a note instead of a secret note and I don't catch it immediately, it could result in armchair logging. So....if that's to be implemented, hopefully it will be a VERY simple process so folks don't get confused.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

As an owner of multiple earthcaches, I condone this idea. My email arrives right to my phone, however, when I receive a "found it" log on one of my ECs, I prefer to view the information outside of my email client. I'd rather view the page in it's entirety. Including a secret log that only I could see would exponentially help and save a ton of time both for myself and the cacher who found my EC.

 

On the downside - if a new cacher finds the EC who doesn't know how to use the feature posts as a note instead of a secret note and I don't catch it immediately, it could result in armchair logging. So....if that's to be implemented, hopefully it will be a VERY simple process so folks don't get confused.

 

When I went on vacation a few weeks ago we stayed in a vacation rental house for a couple of days that was booked through a well known vacation rental property site. After we stayed there we had the opportunity to post a review of the place on the web site. On the review page there were two text areas that were clearly identified. One was for entering text for the review for all to see and the other was for a message that could be sent only to the property owner.

 

This is exactly like what the OP is asking for and I think it's a great idea. On the other hand, if GS implemented this, you can be sure that some people will just type TFTC. in both text areas.

[+J Grouchy]

LOVE this idea! Thanks so much for sharing that, J Grouchy. We will be touching base with the Mobile Department to see what they think. Good stuff!

 

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Jayme. I hope GS gives it serious consideration not just for mobile, but also for the website.

[AZcachemeister]

I can't imagine how this would be any easier/better/more efficient than sending a PM to the CO.

[+Don_J]

I can't imagine how this would be any easier/better/more efficient than sending a PM to the CO.

 

I can't imagine how having everything in one place, and permanently stored on the cache cache wouldn't be easier/better/more efficient.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Hey! I could log my Found it logs on the secret bit.

CO knows I've found the cache, nobody else does! Super-Secret caching.

[+J Grouchy]

I can't imagine how this would be any easier/better/more efficient than sending a PM to the CO.

 

Let's see...

 

Currently: log visit first, THEN...click owner name, click "Send Message" link, type message and send.

...then hope the email is still valid, the owner still checks it, and that the owner is still even interested in reading an email from a stranger.

 

Proposed: log visit AND private message from one page, with one click of a 'send' button.

 

Of course, the uncertainty of owner involvement is still there, but at least it's all on the page and the owner can't accidentally delete the email with all the pertinent information from the sender (which I've done) and, in the case of Virtual or Earth cache answer logs, the CO can immediately see the person's answer directly adjacent to their 'found it' log.

 

How is that not 'easier/better/more efficient'?

Edited September 30, 2013 by J Grouchy

[+niraD]

I like the idea of being able to send a private message to the CO with my verification answers at the same time that I log my find. But I don't see Groundspeak adding a feature like this to facilitate a grandfathered cache type like virtual caches. And I don't think its very likely that they'll add a feature like this for EarthCaches either.

[+J Grouchy]

I like the idea of being able to send a private message to the CO with my verification answers at the same time that I log my find. But I don't see Groundspeak adding a feature like this to facilitate a grandfathered cache type like virtual caches. And I don't think its very likely that they'll add a feature like this for EarthCaches either.

 

Like we said, it could be a feature for ALL caches.

[cezanne]

How is that not 'easier/better/more efficient'?

 

If one owns a virtual or EC with more complicated questions, one might want to reply to the sender in detail and quote parts of the answers.

The Groundspeak system is very bad in doing this. e-mail does serve this purpose much better as I can easily reply from my e-mail account.

As a cache owner I strictly prefer the current system and also as as a visitor I do not have a preference for the suggested version.

I'm not a mobile user however and I often type my answers without even being logged into the gc.com site.

 

Moreover, if the cache owner can see the answers, also the reviewers and admins can see them and I would not want to have all this semi-public.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 2, 2013 by cezanne

[+J Grouchy]

How is that not 'easier/better/more efficient'?

 

If one owns a virtual or EC with more complicated questions, one might want to reply to the sender in detail and quote parts of the answers.

The Groundspeak system is very bad in doing this. e-mail does serve this purpose much better as I can easily reply from my e-mail account.

As a cache owner I strictly prefer the current system and also as as a visitor I do not have a preference for the suggested version.

I'm not a mobile user however and I often type my answers without even being logged into the gc.com site.

 

Moreover, if the cache owner can see the answers, also the reviewers and admins can see them and I would not want to have all this semi-public.

 

Cezanne

 

While email DOES make REPLYING easier, the screen one goes to in order to send a user an email and the screen one goes to in order to log a visit to a cache give you virtually identical text fields. Given that, it is a choice between filling two fields from one screen ('found it' log + 'answer log') or filling out a 'found it' log then going through the process of clicking the CO username, then clicking the 'send message' link THEN filling out the answer log email. More in-depth answers or discussions between CO and cacher can - and should - take place in an email exchange. I know of no way to insert quotes or images into the standard GS form for sending an email to a CO (I haven't experimented with html tags...so I have no idea if that works)...but it wouldn't be any different from what exists now. It would just be in a more convenient and useful place.

 

As for reviewers and admins, one could argue they already have an "inside track" on most caches, particularly multis and mystery caches. I don't see how this is really any problem.

[+dprovan]

If one owns a virtual or EC with more complicated questions, one might want to reply to the sender in detail and quote parts of the answers.

The Groundspeak system is very bad in doing this. e-mail does serve this purpose much better as I can easily reply from my e-mail account.

Well, yes, but the cost of you having this convenience is that you forced them to give up their e-mail address.

 

Wouldn't it be great if they could figure out how to have a "reply to this log" button that would make this easy for anyone to use on any log?

 

Moreover, if the cache owner can see the answers, also the reviewers and admins can see them and I would not want to have all this semi-public.

While I can see your point, one of the advantages I'm imagining to this approach is that the information would be available to reviewers and admins if there's a problem someone wants to appeal to a higher authority.

[cezanne]

While email DOES make REPLYING easier, the screen one goes to in order to send a user an email and the screen one goes to in order to log a visit to a cache give you virtually identical text fields.

 

Yes, that's why I talked about replying. I do own a virtual and I prefer by far to receive the answers via e-mail and have them in my e-mail folder.

If you have a look at my virtual, you will see that it asks several questions which require a comparatively complex answer and I typically wish to comment on the answers.

That's why I prefer the existing system.

 

As for reviewers and admins, one could argue they already have an "inside track" on most caches, particularly multis and mystery caches. I don't see how this is really any problem.

 

I was not adressing the aspect that they get access to the correct answers, but that it makes public (to the admins and reviewers) when answers/replies are sent, how they are they formulated (spelling etc) - this is something I would prefer to keep a thing between the involved parties.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

If one owns a virtual or EC with more complicated questions, one might want to reply to the sender in detail and quote parts of the answers.

The Groundspeak system is very bad in doing this. e-mail does serve this purpose much better as I can easily reply from my e-mail account.

Well, yes, but the cost of you having this convenience is that you forced them to give up their e-mail address.

 

As I use an e-mail address dedicated to geocaching, I do not mind.

Actually, I get quite angry if someone contacts me via gc.com and does not send an e-mail address along.

 

Wouldn't it be great if they could figure out how to have a "reply to this log" button that would make this easy for anyone to use on any log?

 

In theory, yes, but I do not expect from Groundspeak to make this work in a way that it meets my expectations (I'm not using any mobile devices and hate Windows and I'm into linux based systems and pine is my favourite mail program).

 

 

While I can see your point, one of the advantages I'm imagining to this approach is that the information would be available to reviewers and admins if there's a problem someone wants to appeal to a higher authority.

 

For this purpose it suffices for them to know the answers which is ensured by the new EC guidelines anyway.

This does not make public however the full correspondence between cachers (including the time stamps when it took place).

 

For example, I want to decide on my own whether I provide more help to certain cachers than to others (for example, because according to my judgement someone who has a superior background can

be expected to find the answers without help while someone else might get help from one).

 

 

Cezanne

Edited October 3, 2013 by cezanne

[+dprovan]

As I use an e-mail address dedicated to geocaching, I do not mind.

Well, sorry, but others do not.

 

Actually, I get quite angry if someone contacts me via gc.com and does not send an e-mail address along.

I'm sure you do, but this is still just you asserting your preference over others. That's your prerogative, of course, but I don't find it a convincing argument to reject the feature. Besides, the reason you want their e-mail address because you're responding outside the geocaching system.

 

For example, I want to decide on my own whether I provide more help to certain cachers than to others (for example, because according to my judgement someone who has a superior background can be expected to find the answers without help while someone else might get help from one).

I don't understand how a reviewer or lackey looking at your conversation would affect this example. Is this against the rules or something?

[cezanne]

I'm sure you do, but this is still just you asserting your preference over others. That's your prerogative, of course, but I don't find it a convincing argument to reject the feature. Besides, the reason you want their e-mail address because you're responding outside the geocaching system.

 

I just wrote that I get angry when no reply email adress is provided.

I did not use this as argument against the suggested feature. I used the reduced options for replying to more complex text as argument.

 

I simply do not believe that Groundspeak would come up with something that offers a reasonably comfortable way for quoting.

 

 

I don't understand how a reviewer or lackey looking at your conversation would affect this example. Is this against the rules or something?

 

The Earthcache people come up with strange ideas and I could easily imagine them interfere with such issues. Moreover, reviewers are cachers themselves and I would not want to end up with debates with one of them over how many help are they entitled to get.

 

For example, right now they already have a rule that the cache pages have to be written in the local language, but yet there is no rule for answering in the local language. Right now I could answer in English whenever I want - as right now it is out of their control and the mails are not public.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited October 3, 2013 by cezanne